The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that her right knee injury did not arise out of her employment and therefore her claim for compensation was not acceptable. A hearing was held on June 12, 2014 to consider the matter.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim is not acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On March 15, 2013, the worker filed a claim with the WCB for injury to her right knee that occurred at work on March 11, 2013. The worker reported that she was walking down a hallway and felt sudden pain in her right knee.

Information submitted by the employer was that the worker was walking normally on March 11, 2013 when she felt a sudden pain in the lower right hand corner of her right knee cap and that weight-bearing and movement became increasingly difficult.

Medical information showed that the worker sought treatment at a hospital facility and was diagnosed with right knee pain. When seen at a medical clinic on March 14, 2013, the diagnosis was a right reticular sprain with a chip fracture.

On March 26, 2013, a WCB adjudicator spoke with the worker to discuss the accident details and her ongoing right knee symptoms. The worker reported that her right knee was fine before she started work on March 11, 2013. She had a prior claim with the WCB for her right knee and that she had right knee surgery in 2011. The worker noted that off and on, she had pain and swelling in her knee and she may have had some arthritis.

By letter dated March 26, 2013, the worker was advised that her claim for compensation was not acceptable as the WCB was unable to establish that an accident or incident occurred on March 11, 2013. The adjudicator's view was that walking was an act of daily living and based on the accident history, there was no precipitating event like a slip, trip or fall.

On October 18, 2013, the worker appealed the March 26, 2013 decision through the Worker Advisor Office. It was submitted that the circumstances of the workplace injury satisfied the requirements of The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act") as an acceptable claim.

On December 3, 2013, the employer's advocate stated that they supported the WCB's decision that there was no evidence of a workplace accident as defined under the Act nor was there a relationship between the accident, the diagnosis and the degree of disability.

On December 12, 2013, Review Office confirmed that the claim for compensation was not acceptable. Review Office found no evidence of a hazard resulting from the nature, conditions or obligations of the worker's employment. It concluded that the worker's injury did not "arise out of" her employment as required to satisfy the definition of an accident under the Act. On January 22, 2014, the worker advisor appealed Review Office's decision to the Appeal Commission and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation:

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the Act, regulations and policies of the Board of Directors.

Subsection 4(1) of the Act provides:

4(1) Where, in any industry within the scope of this Part, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a worker, compensation as provided by this Part shall be paid by the board out of the accident fund, subject to the following subsections.

The worker’s position:

The worker was assisted by a worker advisor at the hearing. It was submitted that the worker's claim for her right knee injury was acceptable because her accident arose both out of and in the course of her employment. The injury clearly occurred in the course of employment as the worker experienced an immediate onset of right knee pain during her work shift and while performing her required work duties. The only remaining contentious issue was whether or not the circumstances of her injury were considered to have also arisen out of her employment. The WCB denied the worker's claim because no specific environmental hazard was identified that contributed to causing the injury. The worker's position, however, was that the injury still arose out of the employment because it occurred while she was fulfilling the obligations of her employment. When the worker planted her right foot on the floor, which was immediately followed by an intense onset of right knee pain, this constituted a workplace accident by way of a "chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause." Having established both required elements of a workplace accident and an injury resulting from that accident, it was submitted that the worker's claim should be accepted.

The employer’s position:

The employer was represented by an advocate at the hearing. The employer's position was that there was no evidence of a workplace accident as defined under the Act. There was no specific mechanism of injury. The worker was walking down the hall when she felt sudden pain in her right knee. There was no hazard in the workplace that contributed to her pain. There was no moisture on the floor, nor did the worker step funny, twist her knee, trip or slip. She was simply walking down a hazard-free hallway.

The worker's present claim was compared to a previous 2011 WCB claim for a right knee injury. It was acknowledged that knee injuries can occur as a result of a direct blow or sudden movements, such as pivoting or twisting or turning, which strain the knee beyond its normal range of motion. That was not the case here as the worker was walking normally when she felt a sudden and immediate pain in her knee. While the worker's job was busy with much time spent on her feet, this did not mean that her duties created a risk of knee injury that would be greater than normal activities of daily living.

Overall, it was submitted that the worker's history of knee problems was a contributing factor and that her injury could have occurred anywhere, at any time. Not every injury occurring in the course of employment arises out of employment. The requirements of the job did not create an unusual circumstance which put the worker at any greater risk than what she would expect to encounter on a regular daily basis. There was no special condition created by work which differed from what she would normally experience in everyday life. It was therefore submitted that the claim ought not to be accepted.

Analysis:

The issue before the panel is claim acceptability. For the worker’s appeal to be successful, we must find on a balance of probabilities that the worker's right knee injury arose out of the performance of her work duties during the course of her employment on March 11, 2013. We are not able to make that finding.

At the hearing, the worker's evidence was that she was just walking normally down the hallway. Her normal pace was to walk with purpose, but it was nothing out of the ordinary for her workday. She had turned a corner, taken a step with her left foot, then when she stepped down on her right foot, she felt an intense immediate pain and she grabbed for the rail along the wall. A physician who was nearby took a quick look at her knee and felt that the worker's kneecap had dislocated. By the time the worker went for an x-ray, the kneecap was back in place. The worker advised that since the injury, she had spoken with orthopaedic specialists who advised her that it was likely the mechanism of the step (i.e. the way she took the step) that caused the retinacular ligaments to let go and allow the kneecap to dislocate. This is consistent with the panel's understanding of the mechanism of injury for a patellar dislocation, which typically occurs when the forces pushing the kneecap out of its normal position are greater than the quadriceps muscle and the patellar retinaculum can resist.

In the present case, the panel was impressed with the worker and the forthright and credible nature of her evidence. She plainly stated that there was no issue with the condition of the floor or her footwear or the work environment. She was performing her regular job duties, and while there had been some challenging tasks earlier in her shift, at the time of her knee pain, she was simply walking from one station to the next. While the panel is sympathetic to the worker's situation, there is no basis upon which the mechanism of injury can be attributed to the performance of her job duties. There was no hazard created by the work activities or environment which would set it apart from the normal activities of daily living. We find that the obligations and conditions of employment did not in any way contribute to the worker's patellar dislocation and right knee sprain. As such, the panel must unfortunately conclude that the claim is not acceptable.

The worker's appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

L. Choy, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
P. Walker, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Kosc

L. Choy - Presiding Officer

Signed at Winnipeg this 16th day of July, 2014